导　　师： 张友好

学科专业： 0351

授予学位： 硕士

作　　者： ;

机构地区： 华南理工大学

摘　　要： 证明责任的分配是民事证据制度的核心，是民事审判中事实认定的起点。最高人民法院《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第七条正式确立了法官在证明责任分配领域上享有自由裁量权，可以说，如何运用法官自由裁量权对民事证明责任的分配有直接影响，进而决定着民事审判中的事实认定和判决结果。因此，讨论法官自由裁量权在证明责任分配制度中的运用具有较高的实务价值。 由于理论依据含糊、法律规定粗疏及实践标准缺失等原因，法官自由裁量权的运用基本处于无序状态，对法官在什么情形下分配证明责任、如何分配证明责任的认识并不统一，实践中大致出现了补充型、突破型、主导型和否定型等四大类型的运用模式，导致同类案不同判、法官对当事人诉讼突袭等现象严重，损害了司法的权威性、稳定性、可预见性和可信赖性。此外，法官自由裁量权的限制因素过少，可能为掩饰司法腐败提供了“合法”手段，不利于司法环境的健康成长，因此有规范和限制的必要。 本文试图通过分析民事证明责任分配下法官自由裁量权的定义、主要特征、运用空间和心证过程，探讨法官自由裁量权在证明责任分配领域内的适用前提和行使要求。结合案例分析归纳实务中法官自由裁量权运用的四种类型，分别为补充型、主导型、突破型和否定型，归纳出其在法律实践中的突出问题。再从立法完善和程序创建两方面，探讨以立法方式建立以补充型为主，突破型为辅的法官自由裁量权模式，以及创建自由裁量权释明程序等对证明责任分配制度下的法官自由裁量权的改良措施。 本文共分四部分： 第一章：归纳分析民事证明责任分配规则下的法官自由裁量权定义及主要特征，探讨法官自由裁量权在证明责任分配规则中的运用空间，以例证方式探讨法官在运用自由裁量权分配证明责任时的自由心证过程，为本文的论述奠定基础。 第二章：分析归纳民事证明责任分配规则下，法官自由裁量权应如何运用：从形式分配标准和实质分配标准的角度归纳出法官自由裁量权的适用前提，并归纳出目前对于适用前提争议较大的三种观点，为后文论述作铺垫；从公平原则、诚实信用原则及当事人举证能力等三方面归纳了法官自由裁量权的行使要求。 第三章：我国实务界对法官自由分配民事证明责任的理解与评析：指出我国实务界对于如何运用法官自由裁量权分配证明责任有四种模式，分别是补充型、主导型、突破型和否定型，并以案例和评论方式对其逐一分析，以揭示出法官自由裁量权的运用现状及存在的突出问题。 第四章：从立法完善和程序创建两方面，探讨对民事证明责任分配制度下的法官自由裁量权的规制及改良措施。法官自由裁量权的建立及运用是趋势所在，因此规范运用过程是本文探讨的重点。本章着重讨论建立以补充型为主导，突破型为辅助的法官自由裁量权模式，以及建立自由裁量权释明程序等问题。 Allocation of the burden of proof in civil evidence system is the core of the civil trialfindings of fact starting point. Supreme People's Court 'on the Civil Evidence provides that'Article VII judge formally established the allocation of responsibilities in the field of proofdiscretionary powers, it can be said, how judges discretion on the allocation of the burden ofproof has a direct impact, thereby determining the findings of fact in the civil trial andverdict. Therefore, the discussion of judicial discretion in the allocation of the burden ofproof in the use of the system has a high practical value. As a theoretical basis vague laws and practice standards careless lack of other reasons,the judge discretion to use basic state of disorder, the judge in the allocation of the burden ofproof under what circumstances, knowledge of how to allocate the burden of proof is notuniform in practice broadly appeared complementary breakthrough type oriented andnegative type and other types of use of the four modes, resulting in similar cases differentsentence, judges and other parties to litigation raid serious detriment of the judicial authority,stability, predictability and trustworthiness. In addition, the judge discretion limiting factoris too small, it may cover up corruption in the judiciary is to provide a ' legal' means legalenvironment is not conducive to the healthy growth, it is necessary to regulate and restrict. This paper tries to analyze the distribution of the burden of proof under the definition ofjudicial discretion, the main features, the use of space and the process of evidence discussedin the discretion of the judge assigned the burden of proof applicable in the field of thepremise and exercise requirements. Combined with case studies summarized practice ofjudicial discretion to use four types, summarized in the legal practice of the outstandingproblems, and then refine and from the legislative program to create two, and explore waysto establish legislation to supplement the main type, break type discretion of the judge,supplemented by model, as well as create the Explanation of discretion procedures forallocation of burden of proof under the system of judicial discretion improvement measures. This paper is divided into four parts: Chapter I: inductive analysis allocated the burden of proof under the rules of judicialdiscretion Definition and main features of the discretion of the judge discussed the burden of proof allocation rules in the use of space to explore examples of ways to use the discretion ofthe judge assigned the burden of proof when the process of free evaluation of evidence for thebasis of this paper. Chapter II: Analysis of judicial discretion should summarize how: From the form ofallocation criteria and substantive point of allocation criteria summarized judicial discretion isapplicable only if and to summarize the currently applicable only if the dispute for the largerthree perspectives, as discussed later pave the way; from the principle of fairness, good faithand Litigating ability summarizes three aspects of the exercise of judicial discretion required. Chapter III: Freedom of practitioners allocated the burden of proof to the judge 'sunderstanding and Analysis: Indicate practitioners how to use our discretion of the judgeassigned the burden of proof has four modes, which are complementary type, leading, break-and negative-type and to review cases and to analyze their way to reveal the use of judicialdiscretion situation and prominent problems. Chapter IV: Legislation and procedures created from two aspects to explore on theburden of proof distribution system of judicial discretion under the regulation andimprovement measures. The establishment of judicial discretion and where the use is thetrend, so the process of applying norms are focus of this paper. This chapter focuses on theestablishment of supplemental type-led breakthrough type of auxiliary mode of judicialdiscretion, and the discretion of the Explanation to establish procedures and other issues.

关 键 词： 法官自由裁量权 证明责任 民事诉讼证据 事实认定 民事审判 民事证据 自由心证 分配领域 分配制度 司法实践

分 类 号： [D915.2]

领　　域： [政治法律] [政治法律]